I don't understand why anyone would still be interested in a Roku streamer or TV in 2021.
Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
391–400 of 408 posts
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the same thing at all. Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders. That's what competition looks like. A better example would be if Microsoft forced the NFL to use their tablets by threatening to invalidate all of the Windows and Office licenses in their organization. Would you say that's "leverage" or anti-competitive behavior? Imagine if Samsung offere…
> Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders How do I, as another consumer of Microsoft products, get in on this "get paid to use Microsoft products" deal? Oh right, I can't. Because it's not a competition. It's an anti competition.
You can't because you're a boring person. If you were famous or had a large following on, say, social media, then Microsoft might consider reaching out and paying you for a sponsorship.
Although in reality they probably wouldn't do that, to avoid an embarrassing Alicia Keys type situation https://www.cnet.com/news/blackberrys-alicia-keys-tweets-fro...
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
AppleTV, AndroidTV, FireTV, Roku, WebOS, Tizen, Comcast X1, ATT TV, Xbox, PlayStation, etc—the space is incredibly fractured. Outside of the TVs with Roku built in I wonder how many people will buy Roku devices in the future. It will be hard for Roku to continue to compete if they have say, 10-20 percent market share. I use a Roku now, but I don’t think I will in the future. My tv is older, so no built in apps. Roku…
Roku is also going to have problems with their marketshare being so North America focused when platforms increasingly need their stack to either work internationally or at least be trivially repurposed for international. Globally Roku's marketshare is nowhere near 10 - 20%.
The Roku's inability to display non-latin characters is what soured my enthusiasm for them. If it turns out that it's a trivial problem that is easily addressed once it's time to target international growth I will become bitter.
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like Microsoft sponsoring the NFL and so they have to use Surface tablets. That means they don't have Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, and other competitors tablets. Is that anti-competitive? If so, then every business out there must be anti-competitive. Buying ads to get yourself on a higher position in search results, buying ads on TV during primetime slots, and any behavior that makes you look better than your competi…
That's not the same thing at all. Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders. That's what competition looks like. A better example would be if Microsoft forced the NFL to use their tablets by threatening to invalidate all of the Windows and Office licenses in their organization. Would you say that's "leverage" or anti-competitive behavior? Imagine if Samsung offere…
That's not a reasonable example at all. Netflix doesn't sell Roku another product like in your example with Microsoft, there's only one product at play here. Netflix and Roku both benefit from this relationship. Roku benefits from selling more Roku's, and Netflix benefits from people having a place to watch their content. Netflix in this case has leverage because they know their content is more important to people than other content so maybe they can turn that into a button. Netflix's user base is also something that they get to negotiate with since more users = more money for Roku, so it really isn't any different from being the highest bidder.
As for the Samsung example, I completely disagree. If it was a situation like that Microsoft would have paid enough money to be an exclusive provider. You can't count that $400 million as lost without counting how much Microsoft paid them for the exclusivity. If the NFL was just using a bunch of different products then the value of the advertising to Microsoft is reduced, and so they would pay less for it or not participate at all, which they have every right to do.
Most importantly, Roku doesn't have a single button on their remote, they have multiple. Roku's charges companies to put a button on their remote, it's estimated to be $1 per customer. Netflix is likely paying to be on the remote. But even if Netflix wasn't paying or was paying less it's clearly leverage and not anti-competitive behavior because Netflix isn't forcing Roku to only have Netflix on their remote or refuse to do business with them.
The thing is that you can always come up with an example for something being anti-competitive. Any company that advertises is inherently anti-competitive because they can throw around their money to force out their competition. As a company I could have a more expensive and inferior product but because I have so much money I can outbid my competitors to get the advertising slot and will outsell my competitors. This isn't anti-competitive behavior in the common understanding of it, and certainly not in the legal sense.
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the same thing at all. Microsoft paid money to the NFL so they use the tablets, presumably more than the other bidders. That's what competition looks like. A better example would be if Microsoft forced the NFL to use their tablets by threatening to invalidate all of the Windows and Office licenses in their organization. Would you say that's "leverage" or anti-competitive behavior? Imagine if Samsung offere…
That's not a reasonable example at all. Netflix doesn't sell Roku another product like in your example with Microsoft, there's only one product at play here. Netflix and Roku both benefit from this relationship. Roku benefits from selling more Roku's, and Netflix benefits from people having a place to watch their content. Netflix in this case has leverage because they know their content is more important to people th…
I may have failed to get my point across.
> This isn't anti-competitive behavior in the common understanding of it, and certainly not in the legal sense
That's the same thing I'm saying, that advertising is not anti-competitive. You brought up the NFL example, and I replied by saying that's a bad example because it's just advertising, and advertising is not anti-competitive behavior.
> As for the Samsung example, I completely disagree. If it was a situation like that Microsoft would have paid enough money to be an exclusive provider. You can't count that $400 million as lost without counting how much Microsoft paid them for the exclusivity. If the NFL was just using a bunch of different products then the value of the advertising to Microsoft is reduced, and so they would pay less for it or not participate at all, which they have every right to do.
There I think you may have misread/misinterpreted the last sentence in my comment. I was saying that Microsoft forcing the NFL to use Surface tablets by threatening to cut off their access to Windows/Office if they don't is anti-competitive, because it means Microsoft does not have to get into a bidding war with the competition (like Samsung), and at the same time it means Samsung was unfairly robbed of a business opportunity by a competitor.
I never said that the actual Surface deal Microsoft struck with the NFL (in real life, not in analogy land) was anti-competitive.
Also, I don't see what the Roku/Netflix button thing has to do with this thread, because the OP is about Google threatening to pull Youtube TV from Roku unless Roku gives them preferential treatment in their software (among other demands).
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that anyone can make an app and that's separate from integration with system-wide search and the TV app, but when you make an app Apple has a bunch of restrictions over signup, the language you use around signup, and Apple gets a cut. Over the years there has been drama between Netflix and Apple over it (and Spotify and Amazon Prime Video). I think it's mostly been resolved, but Apple wants apps to integ…
Apple only gets a cut if you go through them for in app purchases. Content providers do not have to offer in app purchases and many don’t. There has always been an exception for apps that only allow you to view content.
Right, restrictions over signup. It's also a weird, ill-defined line for "viewing apps," too. As we saw with Hey last year, you can't tell them to go to the website to sign up and you can't just have an app that does nothing if you don't signup, either.
Amazon chose to avoid this fight with Kindle years ago and everyone I talk to is confused why they can't buy books from their iPhone/iPad. Mostly because Amazon can't tell them.
The point is these are all oddball, Apple-imposed hoops that affect these companies from running their business. Even though they're spelled out and relatively consistent, it's relevant if you're claiming Roku is more heavy-handed than Apple.
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#397I'm just about sick of YouTube and YouTube TV not playing well with whatever device I've decided on. First it was YouTube and the Firestick, now it's YouTube TV and Roku. Frankly, how did Google end up with a good TV service? I'd rather not be relying on Google for TV streaming.
First it was Windows Phone, where Google refused to make an official app for it, and then intentionally killed Microsoft's unofficial app.
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#398HBO Max was delayed in appearing on Roku because of negotiation breakdowns. In the case HBO it was Roku that seemed to have the demands. They are looking at revenue anywhere they can, but if their position weakens look for Google, ATT, and others to simply forgo working with them. I think Roku is in a perilous position in general. They generated a lot of buzz on Wallstreet with their high user counts. They also purch…
DSP = Demand-side platform, I had to google it because I thought it was Digital Signal Processing.
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason I picked and stay with Roku is that they aren't married to a single Big Tech co. I already suffer the lack of a proper YouTube app on my Echo Show because Amazon and Google are having a tiff. I don't want to pick an ecosystem and live exclusively inside of it. As it is, I'm already in a mixed household (Me with iOS and my wife with Android) and it's a pain to deal with the lack of cross-platform playing to…
This whole thing where you have to sacrifice everything to big corps and buy new devices every year makes me not want to bother consuming any media at all to be honest. When I see people wrestle with all kinds of devices, services, and subscriptions I just get sad and start thinking if the juice is actually worth the squeeze and coming to the conclusion it really isn't.
>This whole thing where you have to sacrifice everything to big corps and buy new devices every year makes me not want to bother consuming any media at all to be honest.
People said something similar 10 -15 years ago about pirating with bit-torrent. There was certain rage with them I couldn't understand. Now I finally feel the same. I think the age of Napster and BT will be back.
Re: Roku says it may lose YouTube TV app after Google made anti-competitive demands
#400I can't recommend the nvidia shield highly enough as an alternative to Roku
Can you tell a little about what are hits and misses about the shield, and which one you own?